Lawrence v. Kallis
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-02508
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Lawrence v. Kallis, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation and denied Lawrence’s detention challenge under federal habeas law.
Troy Alan Lawrence’s § 2241 petition was denied; Steve Kallis was the respondent.
What happened
In Lawrence v. Kallis, Troy Alan Lawrence asked for a court order reviewing his detention under a federal law that allows certain prisoners to challenge custody. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or arguments.
No one objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it only for clear error and found none.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the recommendation, denied Lawrence’s petition, and ordered entry of judgment.
The detailed version
- Lawrence v. Kallis · No. 0:20-cv-02508
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Troy Alan Lawrence filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure that allows a person to challenge certain aspects of custody. Steve Kallis is identified as the respondent. The opinion does not state the specific basis for Lawrence’s petition or describe the underlying detention issue.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on October 29, 2021. No objections were filed.
Court’s Review
Because no timely objections were filed, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court reviewed the recommendation and the case materials and found no clear error.
Disposition
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the October 29, 2021 Report and Recommendation. The court denied Lawrence’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. The order does not explain whether the petition was denied on the merits or on a threshold ground; because the court adopted the recommendation after clear-error review without discussing the underlying issue, this summary does not characterize the basis for denial.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.